Written evidence by Early Years Alliance (EYS0041)
Education Committee Early Years: Improving support for children and parents
About the Early Years Alliance
The Early Years Alliance is the largest and most representative early years membership organisation in England. A registered educational charity, it also provides high quality, affordable childcare and education to support children and families in areas of deprivation throughout the country.
The Alliance represents 14,000 members and supports them to deliver care and learning to over 800,000 families every year. We deliver family learning projects, offer information and advice, produce specialist publications, run acclaimed training and accreditation schemes and campaign, on behalf of the early years workforce in particular, to influence early years policy and practice.
Workforce capacity and sustainability
Recruitment and retention is without a doubt one of the biggest challenges, if not the biggest challenge, facing the early years sector in England.
An Alliance’s survey of almost 1,000 providers, which was carried out in July 2024, founded that 78% of respondents were finding it difficult to recruit new early years staff with 48% finding it “very difficult”.
In terms of retention, 61% of respondents reported staff in their setting having left the sector entirely over 6 months prior to being surveyed, while 82% of respondents had noticed an increase in staff leaving the sector compared to two years ago.
The survey also found that:
In addition, it is important to note that over half (51%) of respondents said that staffing challenges had a negative impact on quality of provision, with providers noting that quality interactions drop significantly and safety is prioritised over development.
Similarly, the DfE’s own Pulse Surveys of Childcare and Early Years Providers 2024, published in November 2024, found that 30% of providers surveyed in July reported challenges delivering the expanded entitlements, with ‘not having enough staff or childminder assistants to cover new places’ the most commonly-cited reason (cited by 42% of all respondents, and 59% of group-based respondents).
Of those facing staffing issues:
These staffing issues are of a particular concern given the need for an expanded workforce to deliver the expanded in entitlement (as of October 2024, the DfE predicted that 35,000 additional educators would be required to deliver the additional places needed).
In the aforementioned 2024 Alliance survey, ‘feeling undervalued by government’ was the most reason commonly-cited by respondents actively considering leaving the sector (cited by 75% of respondents).
Many respondents mentioned a general lack of understanding of the importance of the early years sector as a key driver of discontent. One provider commented that they would like “to be respected as a highly-educated professional with a relevant master's degree, and not just someone who makes playdough”.
Low pay also remains a key barrier to both recruitment and retention in the early years sector.
According to an Education Committee report published in July 2023, while salaries for qualified primary school teachers ranged from £28,000 to £43,385 in 2023, salaries for qualified early years teachers ranged from £25,714 to £36,961 respectively.
This reflects the findings of the Alliance’s 2024 survey, in which 63% of those respondents considering leaving the sector cited low pay as a reason. Comments included: “[It’s] difficult to keep up my staff’s morale when I can only afford to pay the minimum wage!”
While there have been significant increases to the national minimum and living wages in recent years, these have not been matched with the funding needed to sustainably implement any wage increases beyond statutory minimums nor, crucially, to maintain differentials between staff levels.
The Department for Education uses a ‘basket of measures’ to calculate how much early years funded rates need to increase by year on year – these are: CPI (to calculate general cost increases), minimum wage (to calculate how much the wages being paid under the minimum wage need to increase by) and average wage growth (to calculate how much the wages of being paid above the minimum wage are likely to increase by).
Because average wage growth is normally much lower than increases in minimum wage rates, the use of this metric in a sector as low-paying as the early years sector does not accurately reflect the extent to which the wages of early years staff working above statutory minimums must be increased to maintain wage differentials. As a result, early years funding rates have, for some time now, not been sufficient to allow early years employers to ensure that that senior staff get appropriate pay uplifts when more junior staff see their wages rises as a result of minimum wage increases.
This pressure is likely to be even greater now as providers have been expected to absorb the impact of national insurance increases, with no additional support given to PVI settings to deal with this additional cost.
There is an ongoing tension between the desire to deliver high-quality provision and the desire to build capacity in the sector, something that has been particularly acute in the lead-up to the final phase of the early entitlement expansion.
Alongside the decision to relax staff:child ratios for two-year-olds and an ongoing consultation into changes to floor space requirements, earlier this year, the government confirmed plans to introduce a new experience-based route for early educators to gain approved status to work within staff:child ratios at Level 3.
Under this policy, early years settings are now able to make assessment decisions about their staff’s knowledge, skills and experience, and will decide whether they meet the criteria to work in the ratios at Level 3.
While we recognise that there are countless dedicated, skilled and experienced educators working in the sector who may not have formal qualifications, and welcome the fact that this policy will help them to progress in their careers, it remains unclear how the government intends to monitor the rollout and impact of this policy to ensure that it does not lead to a reduction in quality.
There is therefore a risk this policy could create a conflict of interest given the current staffing pressures on settings that make it challenging to remain operational and financially viable, with managers potentially tempted to assign experience-based route to staff who they otherwise would not deem suitable.
In addition, while continuous professional development is vital for the provision of high-quality care, as it stands, there are no strong incentives for those working in the sector to progress beyond Level 3 (the level upon which staff:child ratios requirements are based). The Department for Education, in its Best Start in Life strategy, has indicated it intends to create a professional register. While this may have some merit in principle, there still remain a number of questions as to how it will operate in practice – for example, who will operate it and whether it will be mandatory.
The fact that early years teacher status doesn’t confer qualified teacher status is also an ongoing challenge for the sector. The challenges that were outlined in the BSiL strategy echoed what was written in the Nutbrown review from 2012, reflecting the fact that very little progress has been made in the last 15 or so years.
In the Alliance’s 2024 survey, when asked what changes would need to be made to encourage them to remain in the sector, 82% of respondents said ‘being more valued by government’.
This is particularly pertinent for those working in the private and voluntary sector, many of whom believe that the current government values school-based nurseries over and above PVI provision. One respondent to the Alliance’s 2024 Turning Point survey said: “I have absolutely no confidence that the new government will do anything positive to help early years; we have been mentioned along with schools but then everything else is all about schools, that's all they are interested in,” while another respondent called on the government to “value early years instead of talk of opening nurseries in schools which makes PVI early years providers feel inadequate to fulfil their role”.
These fears have been exacerbated by the government’s approach to communications around the school-based nursery policy, including assertions that school-based nurseries provide “high-quality early education in familiar school settings” and give children “a smoother transition to reception year”, and that school-based nurseries are at “the heart [of the government’s] plan for change”.
As such, alongside ensuring that the early years is consistently recognised and valued as an education profession, it is also critical that the government makes clear its commitment to a mixed-market early years model and is clear in all future communications what it sees as the role of PVI provision in its long-term vision of the early years sector in England.
Unsurprisingly, the Alliance’s 2024 survey also found that higher wages would act as an important retention tool, with 80% of respondents saying that increased pay would encourage them to remain in the sector. One respondent comment: “None of us have ever done this job for the money, but if the potential future early years workforce can earn more in a supermarket, then there will not be an early years workforce in the future.”
With government funding now accounting for an estimated 80% of early years places, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, in order to improve pay levels across the sector, it’s clear that the government must review its approach to early years funding.
We recommend that the government publish a set of pay ambitions for the early years sector in England, setting out what it considers to be suitable salary ranges for each role level in the sector – and then ensuring that early entitlement funding is set and maintained at an adequate level to enable early years settings to meet those salary expectations.
While the government has taken steps to boost the profile of a career in the early years sector, most notably via the ‘Do Something Big’ early years careers campaign, without tackling the issue of early years retention as well as recruitment, it is likely that any workforce boost as a result of such campaigns will be short lived.
Funding rates differ between private, voluntary and independent settings and state-run maintained nurseries, with state-run settings tending to receive higher rates of funding for older children which account for the majority of funded places: according to the DfE’s Early Years Funding Benchmarking Tool, in 2024-25, PVI providers received an average hourly funding rates for three- and four-year-olds of £5.63, compared to £5.80 for primary school nursery classes and £8.82 for maintained nursery schools. As a result, maintained settings are generally able to offer higher wages, and better terms and conditions, making them more attractive employment prospects.
This discrepancy in funding makes it all the more difficult for the voluntary sector, most often operating in areas of deprivation, to meet the needs of their local communities.
As childminders are self-employed, and often work alone, unlike group settings, they don’t typically have safety nets – such as agency or bank workers – to fall back on if they are unable to work.
The Best Start in Life strategy has the potential to drive very positive change, and has been broadly welcomed by the sector. However, it is difficult to say with any confidence whether or not the strategy will address the sector’s challenges without more detail on how the proposals within it will be rolled out in practice.
For example, while the strategy confirms plans for a consultation on funding, the current is for this to focus on “how early years funding is allocated and distributed”, with no mention of a consultation on the overall quantum of funding. We’re clear that such an approach would be a substantial oversight - if the fundamental issue of adequate of funding is not addressed, then it is highly unlikely that the ambitions outlined in the strategy will be realised. For example, without adequate funding to ensure increased wages, the aim to have an early years teacher in every setting is unlikely to be achieved.
What’s more, while the document outlines the government’s long-term strategy for the sector, it does not address what needs to be done in the short- to medium-term as settings struggle to keep their doors open – particularly given the ongoing impact of recent national insurance increases on setting finances.
Access and affordability
Research shows that despite the continued rollout of the entitlement expansions, finding accessible, affordable provision remains a real challenge for parents and carers.
According to the DfE’s 2024 Childcare and early years survey of parents, published in July 2025, when asked what changes to local childcare provision, if any, would be most helpful for making it better suited to their needs, ‘more affordable childcare’ was the most frequently mentioned response given by parents of children aged four and below (cited by 43% of those respondents). In the same study, 39% of parents rated the affordability of local childcare as ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ poor, while 31% said that they found it difficult or very difficult to meet their childcare costs.
According to the aforementioned DfE statistics, over half (56%) of children aged 0 to 4 years in the most deprived areas receive formal childcare compared to the three-quarters (75%) of children aged 0 to 4 years living in the least deprived areas.
Similarly, 80% of children aged between 0 and 4 years in families with an annual gross income of £65,000 or more received formal childcare, compared to 49% of those in families with an annual gross income of under £20,000.
A New Economics Foundation report from July 2025 also found that the richest families in England will be eight times more likely to benefit from the full roll-out of the government’s funded early entitlement expansion than the most disadvantaged families. This analysis found that working families receiving £34,000 would have to spend over 11% of their gross earnings to have one child in full-time early education and childcare. However, in comparison, a family on £49,000 would need to spend just 8% of their earnings, and a family on £124,000 would only need to spend 3%.
We continue to support the principle of genuinely free, high-quality care and early education for every child – but if, as the evidence suggests, constraints on government finances make this promise unachievable, then we believe it is only sensible to explore alternative approaches, particularly those that prioritise equity and ensure that every child, regardless of background, can access the early education they deserve.
In addition, it is important to note that the DfE’s parent survey found that 48% of parents who had a child or children with special educational, health or disability needs using a formal childcare provider reported finding it difficult or very difficult to find a local provider that could cater for their child's need. This is a rise from 29% in 2023.
The Early Education and Childcare Coalition published a survey in June 2025, in partnership with Frontier Economics, examining the impact of minimum wage and employer NIC contributions, which revealed that due to financial pressures providers are experiencing 22.9% of providers made the decision to accept fewer children with additional needs in the last twelve months to offset increased costs, with 26.5% considering taking this step in September.
This echoes the results of an online survey on SEND funding and provision in the early years, carried out by the Alliance in January and February 2022, which found that 92% of providers had previously had to fund additional support for children with SEND out of their own pockets (with 53% saying they did so ‘regularly’), while 56% had experienced delays in receiving SEND funding. An overwhelming majority (87%) said that funding, alongside their early years rate, doesn’t cover the cost of delivering places for children with SEND.
It is clear that adequate funding levels are vital to ensure that early years settings are inclusive by having an SEND system that is fit for purpose and enables early years providers to consistently deliver quality care and education to children with SEND.
We recommend reforming the early years SEND funding system in a number of ways, firstly ensuring that any additional SEND funding matches all the hours taken up by the child, not just a proportion, secondly that the application process become faster, simpler and more consistent and that funding covers the time it takes for the application process to be completed and finally improved clarity and transparency of the funding system.
There are geographical gaps in childcare provision because funding does not match the ever-rising cost of delivering childcare. In more economically-advantageous areas, early years providers are more likely to be able to fill gaps in funding by charging for additional hours and/or goods and services. In contrast, in more economically-disadvantaged areas, where families are less likely to be able to afford additional fees and charges and are more reliant on funded hours, providers are most likely to struggle financially as there is less scope for them to use private fees to make up for shortfalls in funding.
As an example of this, the Early Years Alliance operates early years settings exclusively in areas of deprivation and despite best efforts, over the last six years, our charity has gone from operating 132 settings to 27. This is due to an unsustainable rise in costs and a refusal to pass these on to parents as this would go directly against the Alliance’s ethos.
While local authorities are given the responsibility of ensuring there is sufficient early years provision in their local area, their ability to do so is largely reliant on receiving sufficient funding from government. However, in a 2024 parliamentary briefing, the Local Government Association (LGA) stated: “LGA has long highlighted that funding for early entitlements is insufficient, which is impacting the quality and cost of childcare provision; the sustainability of providers, and the availability of good support for children with special education needs and disabilities (SEND).”
We would also challenge the widely-used definition of sufficiency i.e. whether or not parents are able to access ‘a place’ as this doesn’t not reflect whether or not parents are able to access the number of sessions they want, on the days they want and at the settings of their choice.
In March 2023, an investigation by the Alliance, which saw FoI requests submitted to all upper-tier local authorities in England, found that while almost all (96%) of council said they had sufficient early years places in their area overall, less than one in six collect data on the proportion of local parents who are able to access the number of days/sessions they need, when they need it and where they need it.
Alongside the wider funding challenges, a significant issue for childminders is the fact that they cannot claim entitlement funding for children who are related to them despite the fact that pre-school or nursery settings can claim entitlement funding for a child who is related a member of staff.
It can result in childminders losing out financially if they choose to take on a related child.
When asked what steps should be taken to tackle the decline in childminder numbers in a 2024 survey conducted by the Alliance 78% said that childminders should be allowed to claim for related funded children.
This was second only to ‘Do more to recognise childminding as an education profession’ reflecting how much more there is for the government to do to demonstrate that it values and respects childminding professionals.
By way of example, as part of a recent early years campaign, the DfE published a video on social media showcasing a parent saying how much better children can learn in a nursery setting than at home, with seemingly no thought to what this implied about homed-based early years provision.
The recent increase in employer national insurance contributions, which has not been factored into early years funding rates and for which additional funding has not been made available to PVI providers (unlike their maintained counterparts), has had a significant impact on the early years sector.
An Alliance survey of over 1,000 providers, published in March 2025, found that as a result of the combined pressure of National Insurance rises, minimum wage increases and updated rules on additional charges:
An earlier Alliance survey of over 1,000 providers, published in November 2024, found that, based on the third of respondents who had already calculated the financial impact of upcoming NICs rises, the changes would result, on average, in additional annual costs of over £18,600 per setting.
The Early Education and Childcare Coalition (EECC) also ran a survey in June of this year which found that following the increase costs due to the recent rises in NI and minimum wage:
Quality and Outcomes
At present, it is difficult to know the impact that the staff:child ratios have had because there has been no follow-up government work to take measure and understand the impact. However, high adult-child ratios are an important indicator of the quality of provision within early years settings. This is particularly true for children with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND).
A survey on ratio changes was run by the Alliance in the spring of 2022, found that 87% of nurseries and pre-school respondents and 54% of childminder respondents thought that operating to looser ratios would have a negative impact on quality at their setting and 89% of nursery and pre-school respondents and 58% of childminder respondents thought that operating to looser ratios would have a negative impact on staff and/or their own mental health wellbeing.
This echoes research which has found a direct association between better quality provision and higher staff-child ratios (Mathers et al., 2007; Roberts et al., 2010) and research that has found that more children per staff member is associated with lower quality of interactions in preschool settings (Karemaker et al., 2011)
The decision to appoint Ofsted as the “sole arbiter of quality” has led to its role with regard to quality in the early years sector being blurred. While Ofsted’s role is essential to assessing and monitoring quality, we are clear that Ofsted’s role is not to shape quality. As such, it is important that there is an infrastructure of practical support for settings beyond Ofsted – for example, from local authorities and stronger practice hubs.
First and foremost, to deliver the government’s target for 75% of five-year-olds to achieve a good level of development by 2028, more funding is necessary as is greater recognition and understanding of the importance and value of the early years sector, this means a real professionalisation of the sector.
Secondly, there needs to be greater partnership between PVI providers and their feeder schools to ensure a smooth transition for children which allows them to progress on their learning journey more smoothly.
However, what mustn’t happen is for focus to be solely on the children “just missing” the target to the detriment of children who are far off the target. The target could risk leading to the children needing the most support not being reached. We wouldn’t want to be in a situation where we hit the target but miss the point.
For the government target to be delivered in a meaningful way it must be accompanied by a strategy that raises all of children’s outcomes by default. The target should almost be secondary to ensuring that all children get the possible start in life.
While the Best Start in Life Strategy is a good start, there are a number of things which are missing that could improve quality and the outcomes for children in early years settings.
The strategy should include additional funding for the provision of healthy and nutritious meals and snacks in early years settings. If the government recognises the importance of children in primary school receiving access to nutritious meals and snacks, it stands to reason that they should to the same for children in early years settings and it would create consistency with reception, year 1 and year 2 in state schools who currently receive free school lunches.
The strategy also overlooked the importance of baby and toddler groups as part of wider family support initiatives. Many are facing significant financial challenges, with an Alliance survey from June 2023 revealing that one in five (21%) baby and toddler groups have been unable to cover the cost of operating using the group’s income over the past year. This is in addition to difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff and volunteers, with nearly three-quarters (72%) identifying this as a key challenge.
Given the lifeline that baby and toddler groups provide to families across the country, it is clear that far more focus should be given to this important policy area. We therefore recommend that the government formally include baby and toddler groups within the remit of all family support policy work. This would include exploring ways in which these groups can connect with other vital early support services, such as health visitors and midwives, and the provision of the financial support – for example, government grants – to enable them to do so sustainably in the long term.
Parents place their trust in early years educators and the BSiL strategy should take this opportunity to support wider family needs to ensure every child gets the best possible start in life.
November 2025